हिंदी

Principle: Causing an Effect Partly by an Act and Partly by an Omission is an Offence. Facts: A Did Not Provide Any Food to His Daughter D. He Also Confined D in a Room. Consequently, D Died. - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: Causing an effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is an offense.  

Facts: A did not provide any food to his daughter D. He also confined D in a room. Consequently, D died. 

विकल्प

  • A committed the offence of not providing food to D. 

  • A committed the offence of confining D. 

  • A committed the offence of killing D. 

  • A committed no offence.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

A committed the offense of killing D. 

Explanation:

A committed the offence of killing D. Death is an effect and in this case, this effect is caused partly by an omission (of not giving food to D) and partly by an act  (confining D in a room). Therefore, A committed the offence of killing his daughter D.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

Principle: Employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee in the course of his employment.

Facts:  X organized a party and hired a caterer. During the party, the generator set went out of order and he requested one employee of caterer i.e. Y to bring the mechanic on his vehicle and promised to pay 1000 for the same to Y. Y met with an accident while going to fetch the mechanic and he seeks compensation. 


Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.

Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.


Principles: 

  • An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
  • In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.

Facts: Ramesh hired a taxi­cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxi­driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.


Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.

Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.


Which of the following could not constitute battery if done with the requisite intent?


Which of the following statements concerning enforcement agreement is true?


This tort occurs most often in society.


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:

  1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
  2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
  3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?


PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of his servant, a principal is liable for the acts of the agent, but a hirer of services is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.

FACTS While implementing the request of Mr. Sampat, the confectioner at Ghantewali and Co. made the oil extra hot to make him a batch of extra crispy banana fritters, the oil sizzled on impact and burnt Dadabhoy who was standing nearby. He wants to know as to whom he should sue


LEGAL PRINCIPLE A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION Maria was an old widow who opened an account with the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit ₹5 every day in the bank. Stephen was her neighbour, who used to collect the amount and deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small commission from the bank for the money deposited. One day, it was discovered that Stephen who had not deposited the money for more than three months had vanished with the amount. Maria filed a suit against the Bank. 


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×